Give USPS control

For the most part, I concur with the idea of having Congress back off on how and what the Postal Service decides to do. The Postal Service has the distinct disadvantage of trying to run a service business like a private-sector operator would do while at the same time being handcuffed by the politics of Congress. Let the Postal Service run the business minus the political whims of Congress. If post offices should be closed from a business standpoint, then close them. If Saturday delivery is not cost effective, then drop it. If we expect the USPS to function like FedEx or UPS, then turn them loose. Oh, and dropping Saturday delivery, which saves $2 billion annually, is a prudent call.

Bill Christopher, Westminster

This letter was published in the Feb. 12 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2]. Follow eLetters[3] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Congress allegedly wants the USPS to run itself like a business — while at the same time dictating penny-ante details that no corporate CEO would tolerate from the board of directors.
Congress wants the USPS to shed unneeded facilities, except every single post office in each congressmember’s district.

The beauty is, all the anti-government types direct their ire at the USPS, thus shielding Congress from the consequences of its own interference.

#2 Comment By tallboy On February 11, 2013 @ 6:07 pm

Let’s charge junk mail the first class price. Two stones, one bird.

#3 Comment By peterpi On February 11, 2013 @ 6:11 pm

No business advertiser would use it, revenues would decline further.

#4 Comment By Dano2 On February 11, 2013 @ 7:45 pm

Creating a perpetual crisis allows the Shock Doctrine to come into play, in order for the ideological to cry that gummint needs to be shrunk.

Best,

D

#5 Comment By tallboy On February 11, 2013 @ 7:47 pm

Less mail, less work, less time, less trash, money saved.

I don’t see the down point.

#6 Comment By GregoryR On February 11, 2013 @ 10:46 pm

Or that it needs to be expanded depending on which mirror image the ideologue happens to be.

#7 Comment By Dano2 On February 11, 2013 @ 10:51 pm

You don’t want businesses to advertise? Why?

Best,

D

#8 Comment By Dano2 On February 11, 2013 @ 10:52 pm

Your premise depends upon shock doctrine being OK. Perpetual manufactured crises is no way to run anything.

That is: the point being perpetual manufactured crisis is Shock Doctrine.

Do try again. Or not. Either way.

Best,

D

#9 Comment By GregoryR On February 11, 2013 @ 10:56 pm

I didn’t say it was a proper way to run things. What I’m saying is BOTH the left and the right are guilty of manufacturing crisis to get their way. You seem to think only the right is guilty of that despite the fact the left does it too. Of course ideologues rarely see themselves when they look in the mirror.

#10 Comment By peterpi On February 11, 2013 @ 11:26 pm

Because it’s all about “his” convenience.The post office is to deliver his mail at cheap rates, and only the mail he wants to receive. No bothersome ads from anybody for anything.

#11 Comment By peterpi On February 12, 2013 @ 6:40 am

That’s what struck me about Ann Coulter’s first book. She was allegedly outraged liberals were using horrible shameful political tactics — that conservatives themselves employ. And she refused to acknowledge that conservatives engaged in the exact same tactics. Or, alternatively, she was appalled that liberals would dare use tactics exclusively reserved for conservatives. People complain about Saul Alinsky, but conservatives know his playbook inside and out and use it.
And I have no doubt liberals do the same thing: Complain about conservative tactics while using them.
Point that out, and people scream “Moral equivalency! You’re talking moral equivalency, when I’m right and they’re wrong!”
I swear someone once said something about motes and beams. Maybe I was mistaken.

#12 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 12, 2013 @ 4:39 am

I keep getting shocked when President Obama and Nancy Pelosi tell us we don’t have a spending problem. Somehow $6 trillion in added debt in four years doesn’t seem to be a problem for them.

#13 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 12, 2013 @ 6:05 am

I think you are addressing the wrong problem. The USPS is facing a technological disaster (electronic communications which render it obsolete) and the country needs to decide what we are to do about it. Do we want to keep an affordable mail service or do we raise rates and cut service to make a much smaller private Postal Service. If we want the former, the government needs to subsidize the post office. If it is the latter cut it loose and let it sink or swim. The worst possible solution is the one we have right now.

#14 Comment By ktrav On February 12, 2013 @ 7:11 am

Almost all of the postal service’s losses over the last five years can be traced back to a single, artificial restriction forced onto the Post Office by the Republican-led Congress in 2006. This was a play by Republicans to destroy one of the biggest unions in the country.

At the very end of that year, Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA). Under PAEA, USPS was forced to “prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in an astonishing ten-year time span” — meaning that it had to put aside billions of dollars to pay for the health benefits of employees it hasn’t even hired yet, something “that no other government or private corporation is required to do.”

As consumer advocate Ralph Nader noted, if PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today.

I keep wondering when our stenographers in the press might actually do a little reporting and look into this.

#15 Comment By Old Enough On February 12, 2013 @ 7:19 am

I remember the first time I saw Ann Coulter. She was on C-span’s Washington Journal. She was crass, interrupted the callers (which is not supposed to happen on Washington Journal) and was generally ranting. I thought, “who is this lunatic?” Then I saw her on fox news and it all became clear.

#16 Comment By mrfxx On February 12, 2013 @ 8:07 am

You seem to be operating under the misconception that EVERYONE in the US has Internet access – or that, having “cherry picked” deliveries to street addresses the private delivery service would be willing to pick up deliveries to RFD addresses – or to PO boxes for a reasonable fee.

Meanwhile, as I recall you are a proponent of the Constitution (at least when it comes to the seconded amendment) – which will have to be AMENDED to get rid of Congress’ responsibility to provide post offices (and post roads). Interestingly enough, the founding fathers found having a postal service so important that it is covered in the main body of the Constitution, instead of in the founding fathers’ greatest afterthought: the Bill of Rights!

#17 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 12, 2013 @ 8:14 am

You seem to want to pick a fight.

What don’t you agree with?

1.We need to make a decision between affordable Mail service or a small private Postal Service?

2. If we want to keep it affordable, congress will need to subsidize the Post Office?

3. If we want a smaller private Post Office we should cut it loose from the regulations it now works under?

4. Or do you think what we have now is not the worst possible solution?

#18 Comment By reinhold23 On February 12, 2013 @ 8:46 am

This is ignorant nonsense. Yes, the USPS is in a declining industry, but it would be profitable TODAY were it not for its ridiculous pre-funding requirements.

#19 Comment By Dano2 On February 12, 2013 @ 9:16 am

What I’m saying is BOTH the left and the right are guilty of manufacturing crisis to get their way.

Speaking of mirrors, I’m glad you need to think that Shock Doctrine – Disaster Capitalism to encourage and enable free-market plunder is something that the dirty hippy lefties do too.

We are all the same I guess, and everyone of necessity gets a projection of our own characteristics!

What color is my pony?

Best,

D

#20 Comment By bleeth On February 12, 2013 @ 9:34 am

Pete isn’t trying to pick a fight. Not everyone has internet access or even a computer. Also, many of us that utilize the internet don’t pay our bills online. Eventually, we will all be forced to go down this road I suppose.

Our postal stamp is the cheapest in the world. If you want to go private you might as well count on prices for stamps and shipping ANYTHING to increase tenfold. Are you ready to pay $$$$$$$$ for shipping those troll beads to your Aunt? I certainly hope you don’t have an avid ebay business. This is the way the postal service actually works well with the internet age, by offering reasonable shipping service to those that sell their wares online.

What congress needs to do is drop this pre-funding requirement that reinhold23 mentioned below. Maybe the postal service needs to get out of sponsoring doping cyclists as well.

I don’t care about Saturday mail delivery. The weekend has always been the weekend and it would be nice to go without getting a bill delivered on the weekend. Monday through Friday is more than enough.

Yes, what we have now obviously needs to change, however, the change that happens could be worse than the existing debacle.

#21 Comment By peterpi On February 12, 2013 @ 10:12 am

I’ll take your first option, but:
I’m not addressing the wrong problem. Congressional opponents of the USPS saddled it with ridiculous pension pre-funding that no private business would even dream of following.
Further, the USPS can’t even close poorly used post offices without a Congressional fight. Or decide that rural areas will still have locations open, but that downtown Denver doesn’t need 6 locations, without the entire Colorado congressional delegation insisting that all 6 locations are vital to this country’s economic and national security interests.
So, I repeat my assertion that it is Congressional micro-management on a scale that would cause most CEOs to quit if it were done by a corporate board of directors that is the main factor.
And, as other posters have pointed out, FedEx-or-UPS-style companies might be willing to deliver to urban addresses, but are they willing to deliver to rural addresses for a reasonable fee? And I don’t mean $10 for a 6-page letter.

#22 Comment By peterpi On February 12, 2013 @ 10:15 am

But since it was anti-government types who created that ridiculous requirement, they’ll be the last ones to tell you that.
If Aunt Sally can’t afford FedEx, why she can walk her letter across the country.

#23 Comment By peterpi On February 12, 2013 @ 10:22 am

She’s on Fox News because they’ll take her.
I’m convinced that Ann Coulter’s real ideology is the care and feeding of Ann Coulter.
She once was interviewed by a media interviewer she knew to be Jewish. I can’t recall how the conversation led to it, but she told the interviewer that Paradise would be New York City — without the Jews. She then proceeded to tell the shocked interviewer that Jews need only believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and they will be complete.
Media outlets were outraged. Her book sales soared. She laughed all the way to her stockbroker. And I bet she didn’t believe a word of it, but set off a bombshell, just because.

#24 Comment By primafacie On February 12, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

“Maybe the postal service needs to get out of sponsoring doping cyclists as well.”

Yeah, 2005 called and they want their snark back. Discovery Channel had primary sponsorship of the cycling team to which you refer from 2007 to 2010, then after a year under the Astana colors Radio Shack assumed primary sponsorship before a merger last year with the Leopard team.

USPS sponsorship ended after the 2005 season, when it used the sponsorship deal as part of a marketing effort for its parcel shipping service in Europe and other places. Ironically, that part of the business remains profitable. Perhaps that marketing effort worked.

#25 Comment By peterpi On February 12, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

Thanks for the update. I also thought the USPS still sponsored a bicycle team.
The parcel shipping may be profitable precisely because Congress doesn’t nitpick every little detail.

#26 Comment By GregoryR On February 12, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

What color is hubris?

#27 Comment By andyandy On February 12, 2013 @ 11:41 pm

Generally speaking, the tendency to lie about what Obama or Pelosi says reveals a loyalty to something other than truth, country, or even fiscal responsibility.

What are you loyal to, Jay, and who are you listening to? Certainly not Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi!

YOu don’t seem interested in facts, but here are some just for you: [4]

#28 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 13, 2013 @ 4:15 am

No, it is not ignorant nonsense. Up til 2006, the post office paid for medical
benefits out of current expenses. They had accrued $46 billion in unfunded liabilities in this area. Now you may think the 10 year period congress gave them is too short to make up the difference, but to say the USPS would be profitable today if it weren’t for the pre-funding requirement IS ignorant nonsense. You yourself said USPS is in a declining industry. Do you think they will become more profitable in the future (the last two years saw a 17.7% decline in volume) and be able to make up the $46 billion better then? Get real.

#29 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 13, 2013 @ 4:18 am

If you look at underfunding of pensions, private industry is underfunded by $350 billion. Public pensions are underfunded by $4.1 trillion. In fact, that ridiculous requirement is probably the most fiscally responsible act done by government in a long long time.

#30 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 13, 2013 @ 4:21 am

I found it funny that I was actually stating the situation as I saw it and I didn’t think I was being partisan since I laid out two different ways we could go and agreed with you saying that the current situation was the worst thing we could do. But it appears the gentlemen from the left can’t take anything in a non-partisan way.

#31 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 13, 2013 @ 4:22 am

I remember them both saying that we didn’t have a spending problem. Who in the world are you listening to?

#32 Comment By Old Enough On February 13, 2013 @ 5:09 am

Yep, a lunatic.

#33 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 13, 2013 @ 6:20 am

Actually he was certainly misquoting me when he said: “You seem to be operating under the misconception that EVERYONE in the US
has Internet access – or that, having “cherry picked” deliveries to
street addresses the private delivery service would be willing to pick
up deliveries to RFD addresses – or to PO boxes for a reasonable fee.”

I said no such thing. I gave two possibilities. One to keep low cost mail service which would require subsidizing the postal service or privatize the postal service which would result in a smaller postal service with higher prices. When someone comes in an says that you said X and you didn’t, I find that to be someone who is looking for a fight.

#34 Comment By reinhold23 On February 13, 2013 @ 9:17 am

The USPS may not even exist in 75 years. To fund employee benefits 75 years into the future is absurd.

And yes, they would be profitable. For example, they would have had a $200 million net operating profit in Q1 2012 were it not for the pre-funding requirement.

#35 Comment By holyreality On February 13, 2013 @ 11:09 am

How about removing the albatross ktrav described?

The world is not run on a household budget. Your points certainly apply when accounting for dollars in versus dollars out. But having USPS pay for pensions the way they were forced to will kill any business.

#36 Comment By jayreadyjay On February 14, 2013 @ 2:34 am

It doesn’t matter if the USPS is in existence in 75 years. Actuaries figure in the liability 75 years from now and that isn’t the problem (that unfunded obligation is quite small 75 years from now—I probably have it covered by what I have in my wallet).

Right now, USPS has unfunded liabilities for healthcare of $46 billion. That’s today. If we said that any increase in obligations would stop today, and we would fund the healthcare we already are obligated for over the next 20 years, we would need $2.3 billion per year or $575 million per quarter. That takes your $200 million profit and turns it into a $375 million loss. Are you still going to pretend that this obligation doesn’t exist so you can claim USPS is profitable? To break even and contribute only the $200 million per quarter you pointed out they made in the first quarter of 2012, it would take over 57 years of “$200 million profitable” quarters to fund that obligation.